Baby killers!!!
Woman haters!!!
OK, so we've heard the rhetoric on abortion. According to one side, their opposition is made up of misogynistic sadists hell-bent (or would they say heaven-bent?) on telling women what they can and can't do with their own bodies. The other side says their opposition is made up of infanticidal maniacs with a thirst for blood that would make Hitler puke.
They obviously both can't be right (unless it honestly is a fight between misogynists and infanticidal maniacs; in which case they both suck). How do we reconcile this? I'm glad you asked, because I have the solution. Well, if not the solution, at least the only logical question that need be asked:
At what point does human life begin?
This is the hinge point upon which the entire debate turns. If something is a human life, to end it would be to kill it. If something is a mass of cells within the body, to end it would be to simply separate a piece of the body; like one might a mole or tumour. By proxy, if the thing growing within the womb is a human life, to destroy it would be killing a human life (I won't say "murder," because that would depend on context). If it is not a human life, to tell someone they cannot destroy it would be limiting one's personal liberty.
So the only question that has any significance is that of the point at which a person becomes a person. Is it the zygote? The embryo? The sperm and egg? Live birth? Ability to survive outside the womb? The answer to this question is the only thing that matters in this debate.
This has been thought of as a 14th Amendment issue, but it's actually a 5th Amendment issue (same wording and applicability as the 14th, in case you were curious; it's just that the 14th is more fun to use): No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. If a fetus is alive and is killed (not by accident nor by medical expedient, such as to save the life of the mother) without due process of law granted to all other people in these United States, it is a violation of this amendment in that someone's life has been taken without due process. If, however, a fetus (or embryo, or zygote) is not alive, depriving a woman of her right to do with her body as she pleases would be a violation of this amendment as it deprives her of liberty without due process. And you thought the Constitution was just an outdated document written by a bunch of old fuddy-duddies; silly fascist!
With the preamble out of the way, on with the arguments! We're going to consider the scientific arguments for when a person becomes a person. There are various other angles with which to attack this debate, but none with as much rationality and objectivity (such as the religious argument, the historical argument, the cultural argument, etc.). There still exists ample room for interpretation in every view, but I'll try to cover the intrinsic problems therein. We'll go from furthest out from conception to closest into conception (I'm not touching any of the pre-conception arguments because I think they don't fall within scientific bounds, weak arguments to the contrary notwithstanding).
One argument for the beginning of human life centres around the concept of the fledgling organism being able to live outside the womb. I will refer to this as the Viability Argument. Its proponents advocate a person becoming a person when they are able to autonomously live outside the womb. The current point of gestation for this argument is 21 weeks and 6 days. I say "current" because this is technologically limited. Should technology advance to the point where a premature baby of younger than 21 weeks and 6 days is able to survive, this definition will, obviously, change.
Herein lies the major issue with the Viability Argument: consistency. Whereas the definition is quite specific (able to live apart from the mother), it is not constant. If a person is a person at 21 weeks and 6 days or beyond, what happens if medical science is able to advance to the point where they can save a 20 week old? Is that organism not granted rights until 13 days later? If someone purposely kills a premature infant, who was delivered at 20 weeks of gestation, at 21 weeks and 5 days, is it murder? You can see the problem. This argument's inherent weakness is that it is limited by technology, and not definitive of the organism itself. While it has some good points (and is in use in places), it is too weak to be conclusive. Also, by defining a "human life" as one able to live on its own, would this redefine others as not alive? A person on a life-support system, or a toddler unable to fend for themselves; would these become non-life?
I don't think it would go to that extreme, but suffice to say there is a logical problem with the definition should it apply to all human life (as it must should it be used for this purpose).
Next up: the Neurological Argument. Proponents of this viewpoint define life as starting when the brain is developed, anywhere from 8 to 25 weeks. The earliest (8 weeks) argue that basic brain formation is the start of human consciousness, while the latest (25 weeks) argue that consciousness begins when the organism displays an individual EEG pattern. There are also some in-between who argue for around 20 weeks because this is when the thalamus is formed, thus the organism has the capacity for rational thought (though, as we know from Congress, "capacity" and "ability" are often two separate animals).
The EEG argument seems to make the most sense of the three for no other reason than consistency. This is a common measure used to determine the end of life for a human individual, so it seems consistent to also use it as the measure of the start of life for a human individual. The problem comes in when we look at the youngest premature baby to have survived (the aforementioned 21 weeks and 6 days). If life does not begin until there is a specific EEG pattern, could someone have killed the youngest premie on the basis that it was not yet alive? I hardly think anyone would argue for that. Still and all, the Neurological Argument has quite a bit more logical credence than the Viability Argument.
On to: the Embryological/Gastrulation Argument (use that word at your next party; nothing gets girls like nerdy sciencey-talk). This argument puts the beginning of human life at about twelve days after conception. At this point, the possibility for "twinning" (the super-creative phrase they came up with for "making twins") is exhausted. The argument states that, prior to this point, the existing zygote may or may not become more than one individual life form. Should we grant "humanity" to the zygote prior to this point, thus labeling it an individual, how will that label stand should the zygote undergo twinning? Would the twins be classified as a single entity? To offset this potential pitfall, the Embryological/Gastrulation Argument posits that we cannot call a zygote a human individual prior to roughly twelve days after conception because we might erroneously label two or more people as a single life form.
The problem with using this argument as a timeline for abortion ought to be manifest, but I'll pretend that it isn't and explain it. Nothing in the argument shows that the zygote is not alive, but rather that we don't conclusively know how many lives will result from said zygote. While it might make a nice litmus for labeling "individual," it's a poor choice for labeling "life."
Our penultimate argument to view: the Genetic Argument. This argument places the beginning of life at about 24 hours after conception. This is roughly the time it takes for the egg/sperm mix to form a new, unique genome. This argument states that, since the organism has a separate genome than either parent, and the genome is human in nature; it is a separate, individual human life form. This argument is both clean and fairly definitive, but it does have a few potential issues in today's "letter of the law," litigious society.
First, if human life is defined as an organism with a unique, human genome; what of twins? They have identical genomes (at least, identical twins do). Would they be labeled as a single life form? Second, what of cloning? Should a clone be made with a genome identical to the parent being cloned, is it not considered alive? Third, what of the dead? Aren't they entities with unique, human genomes?
There is some obvious room for fine-tuning, but I find the Genetic Argument to be the most logically sound (other than the last argument, which we'll get to momentarily). Of course, the other arguments have quite a bit of merit; but I have yet to see this one definitively disproven.
All that being said, there exists an inherent problem with each of the foregoing arguments: time and individuality. In order for a definition to be made law, one must put some real, tangible numbers to it. Let us take, for example, the formation of the thalamus at 20 weeks. Does everyone have a fully formed thalamus at exactly 20 weeks? What if someone gets theirs at 137 days? Would we make verification surgery mandatory for every abortion performed before, say, 18 weeks? Would we simply perform an autopsy on aborted fetuses and see if they had a thalamus, then charge the doctor and/or mother with murder if they did?
Obviously, whatever definition we arrive upon, in a legal sense, would have to allow room for the individual. Otherwise, it is not a true definition at all (in the aforementioned example of thalamus formation, if we arrived upon 20 weeks but were OK with aborting an 18 week old with a fully formed thalamus; then we are not really classifying it as a life since we are comfortable with ending it without due process).
This brings me to the final argument: the Reagan Argument. It's already awesome because it references The Gipper, but I'll go on to explain it anyway. In 1983, then President Ronald Reagan said the following in an article he wrote for The Human Life Review:
"If you don't know whether a body is alive or dead, you would never bury it."
This, to my mind, is the heart of the issue. The debate rages on as to whether this is a right-to-life or right-to-liberty issue, but it all hinges on whether or not the thing growing inside of a woman's womb is alive. Though I cannot say that a fetus is definitively, beyond a shadow of a doubt alive; I also cannot say that it is definitively, beyond a shadow of a doubt not alive. Not in any stage of development.
The real question, then, is this: on which side do you err when life is not clearly, indisputably shown one way or the other? Do you risk being a potential misogynist, or a potential murderer?
January 19, 2010
December 2, 2009
Political Speechmaking 101
How do they do it, those masters of political theatre? How do they stir the blood, inspire votes, and espouse tenuous political positions all the while offsetting scorn and reproach? Quite simple: the speech. A good speech will correct a multitude of political and personal woes, as well as secure that fat cheque and cushy seat (along with all of the sweet perks of legislative and executive life that are so deserved; clearly read between the lines of the Constitution if you're smart enough to have gone to a progressive college).
I will here elucidate the art of the speech. When you're done reading this, you too can perform a monologue that will briefly inspire and minimally offend the voting masses. No need to thank me; my reward is the feeling I get knowing I, in some small way, helped another (that's a political speech tactic, by the way: praising yourself while looking selfless). You'll learn how to find a message, deliver your point, and, most importantly, how to lie. Let's begin!
The Message
In order to craft the perfect speech, you first have to know what the speech is for. Now, while this may seem elementary, it's not as cut-and-dried (in politics) as you might think. What you need to do is expunge your "traditional" idea of what a message is and embrace a higher definition.
A message, traditionally, has been though of as an idea, thought, or order transferred from one person to another or a group of others. This, as we shall see, is not strictly true in politics. Politically, a message is the information received by a person from another. Though the difference appears semantical, it is not. Let's say that you wish to relay information to a friend that a loved one of theirs has died. While you think of it as sharing information, your friend will think of it as imparting grief. Thus, the given message is one of information about the earthly demise of a loved one, but the received information is that you are a bringer of grief.
In politics, there is only one message that you ever want to portray: you are the best thing that could ever happen to whatever situation you are speaking about (unless you are speaking on behalf of a candidate, in which case your message is that your candidate is the best thing). Let's take an example: Environmentalism.
Now, you might start a speech aimed at getting people to drive less with the idea that you're relaying information about how to save the planet. Wrong, wrong, WRONG, WRONG! What will people think? How will they perceive you? Probably as someone infringing on their right to travel about freely; in short, as an intruder at best and a tyrant at worst. That won't do at all. What you need is a gimmick!
A gimmick will get round all of those pesky notions that liberties are being threatened, you are a callous and/or heartless person, you've lost touch with the common man, blah blah blah. Instead of, for the above example, focussing on how car exhaust damages the environment and, thus, we ought to drive less; focus on the actual or proposed damage and its effects. Focus on the devastating flood that will be caused by global warming, or throw out some shots of a cuddly, baby polar bear drowning. Play on fear and shame; two of our strongest emotions.
Viola! Just like that, your message has gone from one of you being a tyrant and all around meany-mean (by relaying information only) to one of you being a nice and decent fellow who only wants what's best for everyone (by playing on emotion and possibly skirting the issue in favour of trumped-up rhetoric). With that squared away, on to . . .
The Delivery
It has been claimed that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. In politics, it is neither what you say nor how you say it; it's how it's reported. And how are things reported in today's era of thirty-second-or-less attention spans? Sound bites.
No useful media outlet will ever replay or quote an entire speech. Those that do cater to the fringe elements that you can't persuade with a speech, anyway (pesky ideologues who form their opinions and political leanings on such transitive things as "facts" and "morality;" not the sort we're after). Knowing this, you must cater your speech to brief, witty quotes that stand out enough to make an enterprising reporter think, "Hey, that's well written. If I quote that, I won't have to do any writing myself!"
Take care, though, as this is a two-edged sword. If you make a point that is antithetical to your message (the message that you are awesome) with too much wit or brevity, it is in danger of taking centre stage as the kingpin of your speech; at least, as it's reported. To avoid this, and to ensure the "correct" message is sent out, a bit of artfulness is required.
First, the bites you want heard. These are the quotes and sound bites that will portray you as a saviour, doctor, smart next-door neighbor; whatever effect it is you wish to promote for your current agenda. Plan these carefully to come at the beginning or end of your talking points (paragraphs in print), and preferably save the juiciest ones for the beginning and end of the speech itself. It's so easy to get lost in the mix, so don't make some poor reporter have to dig for the gems!
In the same way, you'll also want to bury undesirable items. Avoid them or ignore them if you can, but every now and again you will have to say something that could possibly make people perceive you as less than the incredible person that you are (at least, that you want them to believe you are). Bury these points in the middle of the speech, and in the middle of the paragraphs. Further, make sure they are buried in the middle of a sentence; and make sure the sentence is as dull and drab as you can make it. Force any reporter with an axe to grind to appear to be "fishing" by ensuring any negative sound bites will be surrounded by ellipses (you know, the ". . ."). That way, the dry, uninteresting tidbit they picked out of your otherwise stellar speech will appear to be missing vital context that, in light of the glowing sound bites reported elsewhere, must exonerate you from any shadow of perceived malfeasance.
Speaking of malfeasance . . .
The Lie
This is far more simple and more elegant than the first two portions. In fact, it can readily be used to promote either a good image of you, a great sound bite, or both!
If you're going to lie (which will be most of the time), always start off with a variant of the word "clearly." Since you're introducing what you're saying with the word "clearly," anyone who doubts your authenticity can now be called an idiot as your statement was, definitively, quite clear.
Let's go with our Environmentalist example. Your goal is to decrease people's use of vehicle technology, but you don't want anyone to think that. There are several ways to handle this, all with the use of the wonderful "clearly." The easiest is to simply state the opposite of your intentions, such as: Clearly, I have no ambition to limit the use of modern vehicle technology. Now, if anyone wants to challenge you on this, they'll have to boldly come forward and call you a liar. That would be rude, so they probably won't do it. QED.
But what if a more artful approach is necessary? The more complex the lie, the more complex the use of the word "clearly." Another form of the word may be in order; a more forceful one, even. Let's say that you're in favour of a policy that would inevitably lead to a rise in taxes. You could explain how the policy is necessary, and the American people will understand and accept the sacrifice, it will save children, etc.; but who's going to listen to all that? Besides, it still leaves the impression that you're for a tax hike, which, even though you are, is never popular. Instead, simply say: Let me be clear: my proposal will in no way add a single penny to anyone's taxes. Much easier and clearer than some long, drawn out explanation that no one will listen to in any case. Remember: sound bites.
Contrarily, you could claim that the negative of your premise is "clearly" incorrect. Using the above example, you could say: Clearly, there is no evidence to support the ridiculous notion that this proposal will lead to a tax hike. Not a bad sound bite, but best to bury it anyway as it contains a potential negative. Follow up with something like: In fact, this plan will most likely lead to a tax savings. Though you didn't use "clearly" in the second sentence, it was linked to the first which did contain a "clearly." If you want to be extra sure, combine the two sentences with a semicolon; no one reads anything long enough to contain a semicolon. To bring it home, "sum it all up" with a sound bite quip that can't be passed up, like: Our consciences will not bear the possibility of disaster because we failed to act.
And there you have it. Lather, rinse, repeat and you've got yourself a political speech guaranteed to get you or keep you in office! (1,000 political jobs were created or saved with this blog post.)
I will here elucidate the art of the speech. When you're done reading this, you too can perform a monologue that will briefly inspire and minimally offend the voting masses. No need to thank me; my reward is the feeling I get knowing I, in some small way, helped another (that's a political speech tactic, by the way: praising yourself while looking selfless). You'll learn how to find a message, deliver your point, and, most importantly, how to lie. Let's begin!
The Message
In order to craft the perfect speech, you first have to know what the speech is for. Now, while this may seem elementary, it's not as cut-and-dried (in politics) as you might think. What you need to do is expunge your "traditional" idea of what a message is and embrace a higher definition.
A message, traditionally, has been though of as an idea, thought, or order transferred from one person to another or a group of others. This, as we shall see, is not strictly true in politics. Politically, a message is the information received by a person from another. Though the difference appears semantical, it is not. Let's say that you wish to relay information to a friend that a loved one of theirs has died. While you think of it as sharing information, your friend will think of it as imparting grief. Thus, the given message is one of information about the earthly demise of a loved one, but the received information is that you are a bringer of grief.
In politics, there is only one message that you ever want to portray: you are the best thing that could ever happen to whatever situation you are speaking about (unless you are speaking on behalf of a candidate, in which case your message is that your candidate is the best thing). Let's take an example: Environmentalism.
Now, you might start a speech aimed at getting people to drive less with the idea that you're relaying information about how to save the planet. Wrong, wrong, WRONG, WRONG! What will people think? How will they perceive you? Probably as someone infringing on their right to travel about freely; in short, as an intruder at best and a tyrant at worst. That won't do at all. What you need is a gimmick!
A gimmick will get round all of those pesky notions that liberties are being threatened, you are a callous and/or heartless person, you've lost touch with the common man, blah blah blah. Instead of, for the above example, focussing on how car exhaust damages the environment and, thus, we ought to drive less; focus on the actual or proposed damage and its effects. Focus on the devastating flood that will be caused by global warming, or throw out some shots of a cuddly, baby polar bear drowning. Play on fear and shame; two of our strongest emotions.
Viola! Just like that, your message has gone from one of you being a tyrant and all around meany-mean (by relaying information only) to one of you being a nice and decent fellow who only wants what's best for everyone (by playing on emotion and possibly skirting the issue in favour of trumped-up rhetoric). With that squared away, on to . . .
The Delivery
It has been claimed that it's not what you say, it's how you say it. In politics, it is neither what you say nor how you say it; it's how it's reported. And how are things reported in today's era of thirty-second-or-less attention spans? Sound bites.
No useful media outlet will ever replay or quote an entire speech. Those that do cater to the fringe elements that you can't persuade with a speech, anyway (pesky ideologues who form their opinions and political leanings on such transitive things as "facts" and "morality;" not the sort we're after). Knowing this, you must cater your speech to brief, witty quotes that stand out enough to make an enterprising reporter think, "Hey, that's well written. If I quote that, I won't have to do any writing myself!"
Take care, though, as this is a two-edged sword. If you make a point that is antithetical to your message (the message that you are awesome) with too much wit or brevity, it is in danger of taking centre stage as the kingpin of your speech; at least, as it's reported. To avoid this, and to ensure the "correct" message is sent out, a bit of artfulness is required.
First, the bites you want heard. These are the quotes and sound bites that will portray you as a saviour, doctor, smart next-door neighbor; whatever effect it is you wish to promote for your current agenda. Plan these carefully to come at the beginning or end of your talking points (paragraphs in print), and preferably save the juiciest ones for the beginning and end of the speech itself. It's so easy to get lost in the mix, so don't make some poor reporter have to dig for the gems!
In the same way, you'll also want to bury undesirable items. Avoid them or ignore them if you can, but every now and again you will have to say something that could possibly make people perceive you as less than the incredible person that you are (at least, that you want them to believe you are). Bury these points in the middle of the speech, and in the middle of the paragraphs. Further, make sure they are buried in the middle of a sentence; and make sure the sentence is as dull and drab as you can make it. Force any reporter with an axe to grind to appear to be "fishing" by ensuring any negative sound bites will be surrounded by ellipses (you know, the ". . ."). That way, the dry, uninteresting tidbit they picked out of your otherwise stellar speech will appear to be missing vital context that, in light of the glowing sound bites reported elsewhere, must exonerate you from any shadow of perceived malfeasance.
Speaking of malfeasance . . .
The Lie
This is far more simple and more elegant than the first two portions. In fact, it can readily be used to promote either a good image of you, a great sound bite, or both!
If you're going to lie (which will be most of the time), always start off with a variant of the word "clearly." Since you're introducing what you're saying with the word "clearly," anyone who doubts your authenticity can now be called an idiot as your statement was, definitively, quite clear.
Let's go with our Environmentalist example. Your goal is to decrease people's use of vehicle technology, but you don't want anyone to think that. There are several ways to handle this, all with the use of the wonderful "clearly." The easiest is to simply state the opposite of your intentions, such as: Clearly, I have no ambition to limit the use of modern vehicle technology. Now, if anyone wants to challenge you on this, they'll have to boldly come forward and call you a liar. That would be rude, so they probably won't do it. QED.
But what if a more artful approach is necessary? The more complex the lie, the more complex the use of the word "clearly." Another form of the word may be in order; a more forceful one, even. Let's say that you're in favour of a policy that would inevitably lead to a rise in taxes. You could explain how the policy is necessary, and the American people will understand and accept the sacrifice, it will save children, etc.; but who's going to listen to all that? Besides, it still leaves the impression that you're for a tax hike, which, even though you are, is never popular. Instead, simply say: Let me be clear: my proposal will in no way add a single penny to anyone's taxes. Much easier and clearer than some long, drawn out explanation that no one will listen to in any case. Remember: sound bites.
Contrarily, you could claim that the negative of your premise is "clearly" incorrect. Using the above example, you could say: Clearly, there is no evidence to support the ridiculous notion that this proposal will lead to a tax hike. Not a bad sound bite, but best to bury it anyway as it contains a potential negative. Follow up with something like: In fact, this plan will most likely lead to a tax savings. Though you didn't use "clearly" in the second sentence, it was linked to the first which did contain a "clearly." If you want to be extra sure, combine the two sentences with a semicolon; no one reads anything long enough to contain a semicolon. To bring it home, "sum it all up" with a sound bite quip that can't be passed up, like: Our consciences will not bear the possibility of disaster because we failed to act.
And there you have it. Lather, rinse, repeat and you've got yourself a political speech guaranteed to get you or keep you in office! (1,000 political jobs were created or saved with this blog post.)
November 25, 2009
Thanksgiving Revisited
We all know the story. The Pilgrims disembark from the Mayflower to start a new life in the New World. Times are tough, and they, for some reason, have forgotten how to farm. Luckily, some natives stop by and teach them how to work the land. A great harvest is brought in and everyone feasts together. Afterward, they go to a nearby hill and hold hands while singing John Lenin's Imagine and crying.
Except for that last part, that's basically how I learned it in elementary school. I don't believe it was ever revisited during my tenure at higher education. So, like with most things, I was left to my own devices to become educated on our nation's history. I would like to share what I found.
I must warn you, however, that this will not be the standard story you may have held on to that closely mirrors the myth above. This will not be the stuff of children's plays and Thanksgiving greeting cards (more's the pity). If you would rather live with a caricature of history in your mind, by all means please stop reading now. If you, like me, would rather the truth than a fairy tale, read further.
At the start of the Plymouth colony, all lived in a communal advent. Each person was to work equally and to collect equally. There was no individual property, but communal property. Though this predated the work of Marx by some 228 years, they were living in a communism (though the colonists took the rubric from Plato, so it's not really a new concept). William Bradford, Pilgrim and governor of the Plymouth colony for some 35 years, had this to say about the communistic experiment:
"For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it."
-William Bradford
In seeking equality, they had found a particular oppression. Discontent was bred amoung the colonists. Radio stations refused to play Imagine, and Che shirt sales were at an all time low.
Bradford needed a new direction. He believed that, "God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them." Instead of community property and stores, he decided to divide the land by family and population, with each being able to work his own parcel as he saw fit. The free-market was thus born in the United States (though not yet the United States).
The result? According to Bradford:
"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
-William Bradford
In fact, the Pilgrims had so much from their harvest that not only did they not go starving, but they were able to export corn back to Europe!
So, what was the real first Thanksgiving? A giving of thanks to God for showing the colonists the err of communism and allowing them to embrace the free-market system. While you may think that's rhetoric or politically motivated, it is fact. It is history.
I thought communism was an outdated idea that has been shown a failure for these past 100 years. I was wrong. It has been shown a failure at least these past 388 years. It is not a bold, new idea; it is not progressive. The question is: will we learn from our forefathers, or make the same mistakes they did through our ignorance and hubris?
Except for that last part, that's basically how I learned it in elementary school. I don't believe it was ever revisited during my tenure at higher education. So, like with most things, I was left to my own devices to become educated on our nation's history. I would like to share what I found.
I must warn you, however, that this will not be the standard story you may have held on to that closely mirrors the myth above. This will not be the stuff of children's plays and Thanksgiving greeting cards (more's the pity). If you would rather live with a caricature of history in your mind, by all means please stop reading now. If you, like me, would rather the truth than a fairy tale, read further.
At the start of the Plymouth colony, all lived in a communal advent. Each person was to work equally and to collect equally. There was no individual property, but communal property. Though this predated the work of Marx by some 228 years, they were living in a communism (though the colonists took the rubric from Plato, so it's not really a new concept). William Bradford, Pilgrim and governor of the Plymouth colony for some 35 years, had this to say about the communistic experiment:
"For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men's wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it."
-William Bradford
In seeking equality, they had found a particular oppression. Discontent was bred amoung the colonists. Radio stations refused to play Imagine, and Che shirt sales were at an all time low.
Bradford needed a new direction. He believed that, "God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them." Instead of community property and stores, he decided to divide the land by family and population, with each being able to work his own parcel as he saw fit. The free-market was thus born in the United States (though not yet the United States).
The result? According to Bradford:
"This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression."
-William Bradford
In fact, the Pilgrims had so much from their harvest that not only did they not go starving, but they were able to export corn back to Europe!
So, what was the real first Thanksgiving? A giving of thanks to God for showing the colonists the err of communism and allowing them to embrace the free-market system. While you may think that's rhetoric or politically motivated, it is fact. It is history.
I thought communism was an outdated idea that has been shown a failure for these past 100 years. I was wrong. It has been shown a failure at least these past 388 years. It is not a bold, new idea; it is not progressive. The question is: will we learn from our forefathers, or make the same mistakes they did through our ignorance and hubris?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)